Talk:Alex Jones/Archive 6 - Knowledge (XXG)

804:

really, really difficult to find any acknowledged conservative sites or publications that have good things to say about Jones or rely on him as a source. This, by the way could be cleaned up and rendered more informative by noting his self-identification and x-referencing it to the JBS article. As it stands, the article makes much of his putative conservatism in a way which contributes to his status as a strawman for mainline conservative thought. If that's going to be the tone of this article, it bears some mention that Jones (along with other crank JBSers) was a popular source with progressives during the Bush-era. This, however can't be shown by linkage to "progressive" sites saying "Alex Jones is swell!", but it can be readily demonstrated by showing the extensive use of his network of sites as sources on progressive sites. For instance, here is Taylor Marsh crediting Alex Jones:

2957:

shred of evidence to back up your claims on controversial claims on Alex Jones. All he is saying about Alex Jones is that Alex Jones is a shameless far right fringe, self promoting charlatan. That is quite a mainstream view of Alex Jones. Anyone who is familiar with Alex Jones knows that to be completely accurate. Bob Cesca, no one has a problem, you have a problem. Alex Jones, everyone has a problem, you have no problem. Even a three year old can see that you are covering up for Alex Jones, Red Pen Of Doom. You have lost all of your credibility here in this bio page, Red Pen of Doom. You are not here to moderate this page. You are here to suppress critical material on Alex Jones. You have an agenda, and all of us here knows what it is. I am calling for neutral mod to oust you out from this bio page.

2608:

available at the time or something like that (“ut they did fake a few things ’cause they didn’t want the general public to see the real technology” @ 00:16). However, the way I see it the current phrasing makes it sound like Alex Jones does not believe that there were moon landings at all and that they were just enacted on a sound stage or whatever when what he is actually saying is that they did happen and just the footage of them was partially altered. So, should the opening paragraph reflect that? It seems that I am not the only one who thinks that the way it is currently phrased is misleading (cf. the comments on the YouTube video that serves as the source for that claim). --

2089:. Since his primary occupation is saying outrageous things and it is not unusual for some of those outrageous things to be picked up by the media as "Did you hear what outrageous things Alex Jones said today?" this particular comment seems to me to be a fairly standard AJ position; its real relevance to be may need to come from whether it becomes one of the signature stances that he becomes identified by. Does he stand by it as the evidence mounts for other more rational interpretations? are people still talking about Alex Jones Boston Marathon Conspiracy Theory in 6 months to a year from now. it boils down to whether or not covering it now is 1307:

published books about the conservative right and social media topics who has asserted that Jones has inspired Glenn Beck's approach/philosophy. In other words, Daffydavid is asserting that someone who has been repeatedly published by mainstream publishers must be authenticated in some additional manner before we can consider them as a reliable source. That's just nonsense. The being published by a major publisher establishes Reliability, unless specifically demonstrated otherwise, which Daffydavid has not done in any manner. --

270:, where mostly-permanent semi-protection has been in effect for some time without great issue. Cranks will crank and vandals will vandalize, but I think the requirement of a registered account deters a good chunk of them. After all, many of them don't want Knowledge (XXG) 'tracking' them for nefarious and unsavory purposes. I know Knowledge (XXG) is intended to be in the spirit of inviting contributions from unregistered editors, but some articles on controversial topics like Alex Jones can just suffer too much from it. 31: 1401:

verifies the content of a book unless it will expose them (the publisher) to legal complications. Please address the issues and drop the "he was published by a major publisher so therefore everything he says is valid" routine.I am growing tired of you repeatedly saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the actual issue. Please re-read the WP policies you have brought up as it's clear you do not understand them. -

1537:

publishing about a completely loony topic and still be published by your "reliable source" because of good sales for past books as I see has been pointed out to you before. On the spot reporting is different than writing as an "opinionista"(your word). There are many examples I could quote but from your obvious unwillingness to see beyond your own holier than thou opinion I have probably wasted too much time already.

590:. You have offered no justification for emphasizing those external links, and there is no such thing as "critical links" - that's probably something you made up. If you did see it in another article, it really doesn't belong there either. If all you want to do is fight the good fight against Alex Jones, then why not start a blog (like 2816:. The man was widely seen as some kind of "laughable Dixie red-neck raving lunatic" (personal opinion notwithstanding). I agree that we don't want "scandal sheet" type coverage here, but I think a direct quote such as his claim that "1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms" is quite appropriate and very telling. 402:(see also links should be avoided in favor of integration into the article with support from reliable sources, in any case). While I probably agree with at least several of those links as characterizations of Jones, it is inappropriate to include them per Knowledge (XXG)'s policies - the links are very POV and thus violate 210:. The problem with acknowledging him as the primary topic is that we also need to acknowledge that he is totally bonkers, and some of his followers and detractors are willing to vandalize Knowledge (XXG) to make a point. If this move is done, we would need to permanently semi-protect the article and the talk page. — 1879:

pundit (our article subject) is full of ordure, and this is humdrum stuff indeed. However, I think it's lifted well above the merely humdrum by the combination of three factors: (i) the cartoon goes beyond the bland US norm, (ii) it was drawn and written by a man who's won at least one Pulitzer for cartooning and has

842: 2867:

I fully agree but the challenge is to present that remarkable interview in a true NPOV manner. It also should be clear why it is relevant to the name 'Alex Jones' as opposed to being a notable event of that show itself. Also, after his notable tantrum about the upcoming Bilderberg meeting, in England

2607:

According to the source for that claim he actually does believe that the moon landings did take place (“nd yes, we did go to the moon ” @ 00:14) but that the footage of them was allegedly altered to hide the spacefaring technology used because it’s far more advanced than what could have actually been

2388:

This is not a case of whitewashing - it's a case of notability. Troy P. Sexton is not notable and some clips he threw together do not deserve a mention on the Alex Jones page. We don't include every single YouTube video made about Alex Jones because of that - the film must be notable. You have failed

1669:

Actually NO the burden hasn't been satisfied and you refuse to address all three parts of the reliability issue and instead use faulty logic to argue that satisfying one part automatically satisfies all 3. Nor have you answered the undue weight issue, but I tire of arguing with a brick wall so when I

1024:

Hey dudes, I'm in partial agreement with the anon here (i'm glad he recognizes that what he'd like to do would be OR, but he should know that Talk isn't a messageboard, either). I noticed that the same text that (using about ten redundant sources too many) establishes Alex Jones as being on the right

505:

Your edits are becoming disruptive - there is no such thing as "Critical" external links. To give special emphasis to them is not neutral. Despite what you or I may think about Alex Jones, the majority of this article's contributors are trying to create a thorough and accurate article on Jones. Think

2906:

I will be reverting the archive status of the "Alex Jone as a racist" thread if there is no evidence that shows that Bob Cesca is not a political writer. This seems like a pretext for suppression of negative material on Alex Jones. You also don't seem to be neutral to me on this issue of Alex Jones,

2702:

No can do. Wiki editors should not use the wiki page of a person to debunk or validate any of his ideas. This would compromise Wiki's integrity to it's bone. I'm not claiming wiki has integrity, in fact I would dispute that, but it doesn't mean one should accept (further) compromise of (what is left

2316:

Are random Youtube videos considered "films", or do they actually have to be published or at least noteworthy pieces to be listed as such? Because on the "film subject" section is listed the piece called "The Alex Jones Deception", which upon making a search just seems to be a random series of video

1400:

RedPen, I'll try one last time. Being published by HC does NOT satisfy the issues raised. Just because you manage to get published does not make you or everything you write a RS. An author may have several books published solely on the strength of a previous book that was a best seller. HC in no way

1329:

and notice the burden is on you not me. Re-read the comment made by JohnShandy. Repeatedly stating the reliability of the publisher will not somehow relieve you of the burden to prove that is notable enough to include. Yes, I'm referring to BOTH the National Guard incident and the subjective opinion

1277:

I think Daffydavid is talking about the noteworthiness of it. Having a reliable source in hand is a required first step, but there are other considerations per the rest of WP's policies. That said, I don't have any commentary on the national guard incident as I haven't yet read about it yet. I think

1120:

of the John Birch Society variety. It is incorrect and misleading to label Alex Jones as right-wing as this wiki does. This article needs correcting on the ultra right-wing views of Alex Jones. Alex Jones is not mainstream. Alex Jones is not right-wing. Alex Jones is U.S. southern John Birch Society

1045:

Though Jones has gained notoriety in recent years for his conspiratorial rhetoric about various initiatives of the Obama administration, Jones has been operating his network of websites and shortwave radio since prior to 9-11, when his theories about Neocons and 9-11 Truth attracted the attention of

984:

There was a broad confluence through what progressives and JBSrs believed about Bush "NeoCons" and "Corporate Overlords". Progressives were attracted to his show precisely because he was a "truther" who believed that Bush was executing a master plan hatched at Bohemian Grove. Jones actively sought a

625:

I think that citing him being characterized by mainstream media as 'conservative' is misleading especially when most conservatives (really, any reputable conservative) considers Jones to be out on the fringes at least. Most often as a conspiracy theorist. Mainstream media would do well to consider

551:

I think your arguments are complete and total rubbish. I am adding clarity to the links by classifying them. Other wiki pages also do so. You are using thin arguments to hide your agenda of white washing Alex Jones. Please stop disrupting the edits that is making the article fair and balanced on the

2956:

That's poppycock talk Red Pen of Doom! You are the only one in this world that has problems with Bob Cesca as a politial writer. I have not seen anyone else that has isBob Cesca. Besides, Bob Cesca has not made any special or sues with Bob Cesca. You are the only one. You have not produced a single

2723:

I'm just wondering why no one has yet added the Alex Jones interview on Piers Morgan, as it has made significant national news. Are we waiting for the fall-out, or ignoring it? I'd like to add something if no one else will, but want to make sure I'm not late to the party in terms of edit warring or

1444:

A direct quote from the policy - The word "source" in Knowledge (XXG) has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

1302:

currently we dont have anything in the article about the National Guard incident, the content I saw in the source above appeared like it was an issue that deserved more investigation and possible inclusion, but the googlebooks preview snipped out important sections that would have been necessary to

1223:

You're being facetious right? The publisher is irrelevant to the quality of the book itself and that was an aside anyway. Try addressing the actual question. Did Mr. Jones have a significant impact or did he hijack an issue for his own purposes. The point is - SIGNIFICANCE. Measurable significance.

1049:

Guests on his show have come from a range of political perspectives spanning from the far-left to the far-right of the political spectrum and has included a number of figures from the entertainment industry, including Billy Corrigan, KRS One, Ed Asner and Charlie Sheen, who sparked controversy when

2222:

As for the Rolling Stones article, you need to click at the bottom to go the next pages. Yo probably looked at only the first page. Two of the three claims were sourced. Only the Anderson High wasn't, so I removed that and reworded. As for the birth date, I believe that's an attempt to source to a

969:

What are your arguments about Alex Jones and the progressives? I don't think that all of Alex Jones' guests during the Bush era were aware of the ultra right-wing views of Alex Jones or that Alex Jones is associated with the John Birch Society and neo-confederate movement. Some people portray Alex

803:

Well, I don't see anything in the body of this article which identifies Jones with the right which follows the model of a "conservative" site saying good things about him. There is is self-identification and a bunch of mainstream news sources identifying him. This much I understand, as it would be

2142:

None of the citations on the line calling Jones a "right-wing conspiracy theorist" actually contain the word "right wing". Please fix this error or provide alternate citations. Furthermore, intro to the article should include Jones' political/philosophical affiliation, i.e, "Jones identifies as a

1726:

On Alex Jones's syndicated talkshow, he commented multiple times in mid April, 2013 that in his Knowledge (XXG) photo he was extremely constipated, and his production schedule and team made it unable for him to go to a restroom - adding that this unflattering photo was used by Wikipedias' liberal

1242:

I will leave it for now since I'm not going to go down the 3RR route, the info is challenged. Further Knowledge (XXG) is not a list of every comment ever made. To suggest that a comment made by an author is significant merely because he managed to get published by HarperCollins is a non-sequitur.

1003:

I think the worst harm that Alex Jones and people of his ilk did is to confuse, frighten and dumb down americans and distract people away from real life political issues and problems and instead misled people with make believe threats . Alex Jones did real harm there. And he made people like Bill

2413:" must be restored. That film is an important and notable film as it debunks and exposes the far right propaganda of Alex Jones, it must not be suppressed. If you watch the film, you will find that Alex Jones is completely and thoroughly debunked and exposed. It is indeed a notable film on Jones. 1261:

This section is about Jones potential impact vis a vis the National Guard incident. And of course what published authors decide to include in their books is what we build our articles on. This is precisely the type of content that should go into an encyclopedic article. The source is prima facia

641:

I agree with you. It is not correct to label Alex Jones as "right-wing" or "conservative". What Alex Jones really is; is ultra right-wing of the John Birch Society type. That is a more accurate label for Alex Jones. This article doesn't mention John Birch Society at all. That is where Alex Jones

1878:

Seems commonsensical to me, but Knowledge (XXG) gamely takes on the task of writing up such people. It seems to me that the meat in the article is in a pair of paragraphs, the first of them starting "Meanwhile, Jones was on the air". Well, it could be objected, one pundit is saying that another

1536:

Actually TheRedPenOfDoom your examples don't make any sense since Huffington Post is not considered to always be a reliable source. Further to say that one becomes reliable by being published by sources that reliable is hogwash, at any point a "reliable" person could start believing in or start

2558:

It seems like very little in terms of the topics he brings up on his shows is mentioned here. One topic is chemtrails for instance. He brings up all sorts of conspiracies and they should be listed here to show his true interests and beliefs. They also would reflect on his character should they

2028:

But those are not my own private views. They are views of credible mainstream organisations. How can that be considered biased? There are no mainstream or credible media outlets or organisations that consider Alex Jones as rational or legitimate. The vast majority of them label Alex Jones as a

1186:

Mr. Jones merely piggy-backed on a movement already underway. But the more important question would be, "is this significant"? If it is, how much of an impact did Mr. Jones have? The book you have added is not a big seller nor does it have good reviews so it may not stand up to a RS challenge.

1101:

I am not familiar with most of the history of this article. However, I can guess that a reason why a claim that somebody is right wing has ten or more redundant sources is that there've been claims, however risible, that the person is not right wing. (I've seen such claims in the talk pages of

1306:

Daffydavid is rather complaining in this section about the use of content from that same source (content which for these claims is fully visible in the googlebooks preview) and is currently in the article. In particular, he wants to remove a claim by someone who has written several mainstream

2848:

If presented in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, certainly not. But opinions and interpretations quoted and attributed as opinions and interpretations are certainly acceptable. When someone throws a tantrum the neutral point of view description is going to describe it as a tantrum and there is no

826:

Alex Jones is a U.S. Southern John Birch Society ultra right-winger. Alex Jones is certainly no progressive. I don't remember the leftwing crediting Alex Jones with anything during the Bush era. For the left to be associated with an ultra right-wing crackpot like Jones would be odd in any

970:

Jones as a harmless conspiracy crank. That's not true at all. Alex Jones belongs to an ultra right-wing reactionary southern political phenomenon that has very old roots. His conspiracy theories are old rehashed John Birch Society stuff from 50s and 60s updated for the online generation.

2243:

I found a dubious source online that states that Alex Jones' father was a member of the far right John Birch Society. I was wondering whether anyone had more credible sources that I can use to add this piece of additional info to the Jones bio page. Here's the source on Jones' father:

1386:- does the verifiable content represent a significant aspect in the encyclopedic discussion of the subject? And that is a valid question that can be discussed about the content from this source, but each verifiable claim will need to be assessed individually, which we can do below.-- 2977:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Knowledge (XXG) page. ... Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be

784:

I dont really know what you mean. If there are "progressive" sites that are reliable sources that said good things about him during the Bush years, their views can be quoted. if the "progressive" sites are not reliable sources, what they said about him is pretty irrelevant. --

1468: 843:

http://www.dailykos.com/search?story_type=&search_type=search_stories&text_type=any&text_expand=contains&text=infowars&usernames=(usernames)&tags=(tags)&time_type=time_published&time_begin=01/01/2001&time_end=01/01/2009&submit=Search

2332:"The Alex Jones Deception" is not a random bunch of youtube clips but a documentary film made by Troy P. Sexton debunking the conspiracy theories of Alex Jones. The films also points out the propaganda tactics used by Jones on his listeners. Here is the link to the film: 2173:

In the first paragraph of the biography, it is claimed that Alex Jones' father is a dentist, that he grew up in Rockwall, that he attended Anderson High School, and that he was a lineman on the football team. This is claimed to be cited in a Rolling Stone article

985:

broad-spectrum coalition of "truth-seekers". Ed Asner, who is a member of the Democratic Socialist Party, appeared as recently as 2011. Apart from that, what is, in your view, the harm effected or potential in Alex Jones' loony blather?15:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

1472: 247:. If this article gets significantly more page views than any other Alex Jones article, then it should be primary. His fans can misbehave regardless of whether he is primary topic or not. Will they celebrate and burn sofas or something, like DC football fans? 1056:

I think this treatment acknowledges Jones' political identity and his status as a conspiracy nut, completes the profile of his influence without sounding hysterical or zealous to make him a rightwing tarbaby, as it were. Lemme know what you all think.

1373:

Having been published in major publisher gives the presumption of YES. You will need to provide specific counter factual reliable sources that question the factualness of claims that have been published in reliable sources - we do not conduct

577:

If you think my arguments are rubbish, then I invite you to refute them. As a fervent critic of Jones, I have no incentive to white-wash the article to make him look more respectable. As Wikipedians however, we have a mandate to help sculpt a

1939:

This Alex Jones wiki is basically a whitewash of Alex Jones by his followers. I think it's time for a more accurate write up on Alex Jones. It's shameful for this wiki to exist as it currently is. I don't want any naive fellow to be conned

1378:

to confirm what statements /claims / analysis about claims that have been reliably published. The fact that the claims are in a source published by HC fully satisfies all of your claims on this front until you verifiable claims to the

1427:. There are other factors that impact whether or not content should be included, but your continual personal claims that content from this source are not reliable is baseless without you providing actual evidence to the contrary. -- 1004:

O'Reilly look moderate and sane. Basically Alex Jones is a person with no substance, that is why he has to resort to making everything into a big conspiracy to attract attention and boost his ratings. He is a lowlife in this sense.

2760:

I thought Alex said the information on his WP page (regarding his number of radio station syndicates) was ten years old, not WP itself. Anyway, it makes sense to me to have an AJ-Piers Morgan interview section on his main page.

1575:

The Will Bunch book appears to indicate that Jones may have had an impact on Iowa National Guard incident. Does anyone have full access to the book or to other sources which would be able to confirm or dispute such a claim? --

2223:

particular radio show (not a great source as it's laid out). The Rolling Stones article, though, says he was born in Dallas in 1974, so the only thing that would be missing would be precise day. I'm leaving it for the moment.--

2584:

Alex Jones mostly rehashes old 1960s John Birch Society conspiracy theories. There is no evidence whatsoever backing Alex Jones' JBS conspiracies. See "The Alex Jones Deception" for a complete and thorough debunking of Alex

1983:

Is calling Alex Jones a U.S. southern ultra right-wing nut acceptable? It is considered biased or factual? Just want to clarify that. Many credible sources have described Alex Jones as an ultra right-wing nut. For example,

369:

I just want to say that I support this move, even though the move is done. I think when many search "Alex Jones", he would be the first in mind. I don't know how to see the amount of page views, but I support this move :)

2199:

Further still, the first sentence says that citation for him being born in Texas in 1974 points to the Wiki entry for "Coast to Coast AM". What does this page about a radio show have to do with the birth of this guy?

459:"Your insertions of these links is analogous to an editor adding Muslim, Terrorist, and Antichrist to the Barack Obama article, or an editor adding Nazi, War criminal, and Theocrat to the George W. Bush article." 2559:

include quotes in how he has presented them. I wonder if they have been edited out for some reason.As a public figure, his past interests and beliefs should be included. Some topics seem to be conveniently removed.

761:

The evidence is plentiful but including it runs up against WP:OR issues, since mainstream sources seem to have had no use for him before he became a popular strawman for conservative thought sometime in mid-2011.

2623:

So what are the exact views of Alex Jones regarding the moon landings? Is there a clear source to back up his views? Alex Jones has a habit of conning naive and gullible people and playing to the gallery, see:

2779:

It's not all that odd that the interview has taken a while to be mentioned in the article, if you consider how few editors pay this article any regular attention. You're fine to improve the article at will per

506:

about what you're doing for a moment, but let's replace you with an Alex Jones supporter who buys into Jones hook, line, and sinker. If that editor were coming here and emphasizing InfoWars and PrisonPlanet as

514:

internal links. If you can slant the article against Jones, his supporters will think they can slant it in favor of him. Neither of those scenarios is acceptable to Knowledge (XXG)'s core content policies:

2317:

clips by a Youtube user. Really not worth enlisting here, since there are literally thousands of people uploading clips in favor of or against Alex Jones. Plus, the clips are extremely horribly edited.

1846:

I'm going with the presumption that the original post, in addition to being an excuse to attack Jones, was meant to propose that his comments on the bombings be added to the article, using the linked

626:

Bill Kristol, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, George Will, Clint Eastwood, the National Review, the Weekly Standard, even David Frum as 'conservative' - Alex Jones isn't even on the same planet as them.

2435:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject .

582:

article about Alex Jones so that readers can learn something substantive about him. I'm trying hard to assume good faith on your part, but I'm not sure you have read Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. See

2483:

There are no grounds whatsoever to exclude it from the film subject section. The film is a good film exposing and debunking Alex Jones as a shameless far right charlatan, it must not be suppressed.

1153:

His impact in the cancelling of the Iowa national guard incident mentioned here should be included, but the online googlebook expression is not showing some of the details that would be needed.

1071:

the reception can only go like that if you provide actual sources that make that commentary and analysis. you cannot create such a text based on the fact that someone was a guest on his show. --

1042:

Jones has been described as a conspiracy theorist. The SPLC has written that Jones's work draws from the John Birch Society, and Patriot Movement milieu. Jones describes himself as a Libertarian.

2834:

Subjective language in this section undermines the credibility of the description of the events. "One-person shoutfest" is not a neutral and impartial phrase befitting an encyclopedia article.

1760:

I thought Alex Jones' followers whitewashed his image on wikipedia? If you want to talk about using images to defame people, you can try Alex Jones' website. Everything is defaming there. lol.

1330:

of the author quoted. Does he have data that proves Mr. Jones had a significant impact in the incident and does he have quotes from Glenn Beck crediting Mr. Jones as an inspiration or not? -

2567:) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I'd like to add that the labelling of Alex Jones, in this article, as a 'conspiracy theorist' is misleading, considering that he has evidence for his claims. 1365:

Your initial dispute and "Does he have data that proves Mr. Jones had a significant impact in the incident and does he have quotes from Glenn Beck crediting Mr. Jones " are covered under

2373:" from the films subject section using the pretext that the film is "hardly notable". I suspect this is another case of whitewashing of Alex Jones. The film must be restored immediately. 2175: 310:

there does indeed seem to be overwhelming use for Alex Jones the host, with almost 10x the traffic as the next guy, which means over 90% of the people are looking for "this" Alex.

1116:

There seems to be a falsification of Alex Jones' views. His views are not mainstream right wing views. No one from mainstream right-wing parrots Alex Jones' views. Alex Jones is

2261:"My parents were careful not to give me political views almost as an experiment to see what I'd turn into," he says. "The closest thing to a childhood political training was 192:

There are others but these are the major ones. All of these have recently received a recent bump in traffic presumably because of misdirected hits from the radio producer.

883:

Guests interviewed on Alex Jones' radio show prior to the Obama administration: Greg Pallast, Brad Friedman, Gore Vidal, George Galloway, etc. 05:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

674:(2006), Jones was one of two executive producers. The film was written and directed by Thomas Hefferon and produced by Jason Bermas, Thomas Hefferon and Korey Rowe. See 1453:

you have to back up your claim, not me. If this book is on the RS list I missed it, but if you would be so kind as to forward a link I would appreciate it. Thank You, -

1362:. Questions about content boil down to the questions 1) Can we verify the claim was made by an appropriate source? and 2) is the claim significant enough to include? 1876:

Usually, it would be best to ignore conspiracy-mongers such as Alex Jones and not reward him and his angry gaggle of paranoiac followers with any sort of attention.

1449:."Your continual personal claims that content from this source are not reliable is baseless without you providing actual evidence to the contrary." - Again as per 919:...Ed Asner, KRS One, Christopher Hedges,... I'd google it for you, but the effort would be wasted due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT citing WP:OR. 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 2078: 2010:

when all you are doing is calling him a wing nut, yes that is BLP violation and will lead to you being blocked. we are here to build an encyclopedia article

1445:

So, yes HC satisfies the last part, but you refuse to answer the other two parts and please address why the info is significant enough for inclusion as per

1637:, if this claim is true then more than one and in fact several references should be available backing this up. Please address this issue. Is there another 707:

Should be stricken altogether. To say someone saw a movie for which another person was a financier is to say there is nothing at all. Let's get real, here.

1743: 869:. Secondly, whatever you want to say, please back it up with specific links, as opposed to a list of links of which some may be relevant, others not. -- 2269: 1888:

called Jones's conspiracy theory about the attack "total ping-pong-balls-for-brains nonsense" and depicted him as vermin emerging from an internet sewer

1641:

stating the same thing? If so, then you have proved your point and it is acceptable for inclusion as a quote representative of the body of evidence.-

1025:

is repeated both in the body and in the lede. I'm going to go ahead and remove the one from the lede, as I think it's more appropriate for the body.

2176:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110408062434/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302

2526:

I don't know whether it can be used as a source or not. That issue about source is completely irrelevant and does not apply here as I am not using

2070: 1850:

article as a source. Fine in concept, but I don't have a good feeling about how the content would be added unless it is worked out here first.

2475:

as a source. I am just including it in the films subject section. That is completely justified in my view. I am not quoting the film at all.

1480: 1484: 2688: 2629: 2609: 2586: 2560: 2535: 2414: 2296: 2253: 2030: 1997: 1941: 1813: 971: 828: 643: 293:

with such a common name a person should have to overwhelming dominate its use to be a primary topic, and Jones does not meet that criteria.

2934:, et al, just because a comedian is commenting on politics, does not make the comedian a "political commentator" of the stature to allow 1585: 123:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2958: 2652: 2374: 2351: 2336: 2207: 2185: 2155: 2144: 2086: 1789: 1699: 1591:"Full access to the book?" You ever hear of the library or the bookstore? That's usually where I go to obtain "full access" to a book. 1122: 1005: 992: 926: 890: 852: 815: 772: 267: 2908: 2484: 2318: 2129: 1761: 1728: 559: 487: 466: 2350:

Who removed "The Alex Jones Deception" film from the Jones Film subject section? Why was it removed? It must be restored immediately.

678:. It's a stretch to say that Jones produced the film when he was neither the sole producer nor one of the main producers on the film. 524: 1538: 1262:

reliable published source by a major publishing house. It is your burden to show why there is any reason why we should doubt it. --

1243:

Quit beating a dead horse. Please make your comments here rather than in the edit summaries so they are easily viewable. Thank You.-

1168: 679: 1804: 520: 2108:

It could happen, RedPen. Those same idiots are still maintaining Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre theories six months later. -------

1085:

I'm just spitballin'. Someone else can come up with the links. The current version reads as incoherent and agenda-driven, though.

666:", repeating a claim from Alexander Zaitchik's Rolling Stone article "Meet Alex Jones" that "Loughner was reported to be a fan of 2807: 2082: 758:

Does anyone have any ideas how to complete this article with information about his positive reception within the Bush-era Left?

143: 1993: 2885: 2708: 1614:

The Will Bunch book makes a claim that Jones has influenced Beck. Such an influence and impact is the essential nature of what

2530:

as a source in the article. I am putting it under the "films subject section" which is completely correct and justified. The

266:. I agree with the reasoning provided by Marcus and Kauffner. I also share Arthur Rubin's concerns, but a related article is 2074: 1985: 753:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1955:

Your dedication to "saving" naive readers, while potentially commendable, has no place in editing Knowledge (XXG) articles

1144:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2942:

a credible political commentator? When BLP is involved, the burden is on the person claiming appropriate credentials. --

1954: 114: 169: 2270:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/talk-radios-alex-jones-the-most-paranoid-man-in-america-20110302?print=true

1627: 805: 1278:

Daffy is genuinely concerned with making sure that Alex Jones's impact on the national guard incident is given only

2881: 2704: 1467:

one becomes an individual that is "reliable" by being published by sources that are reliable; such as the reliable

175:– It is unusual it has taken this long for a formal move discussion to take place. The radio host is evidently the 97: 38: 2431:

Posit that the "film" makes "contentious claims about a living person." The film is self-published by " PaCmAn".

2258:

The rolling stones article states that Jones was influenced by the far right John Birch Society since he was two:

516: 2984: 2943: 2854: 2143:

libertarian and a conservative, and while critics have called him "right wing" Jones himself rejects the label."

2094: 2015: 1970: 1747: 1685: 1656: 1619: 1577: 1487: 1428: 1387: 1308: 1263: 1210: 1072: 786: 694: 298: 231: 197: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 328: 176: 2997:

You might want to read that link yourself RedPen, you paraphrased again in support of your interpretation. See

2821: 2766: 2304: 1828:

This talk page is intended for proposals for the article on Alex Jones. If you have a proposal, what is it? --

2692: 2633: 2613: 2590: 2564: 2539: 2418: 2300: 2034: 2001: 1989: 1945: 1817: 1684:

so do you want to be trouted from the RS notice board or the NPOv notice board? Whichever is fine with me. --

975: 832: 647: 359: 124: 2796: 2656: 2378: 2355: 2340: 2215: 2193: 1883:, and (iii) it was published not merely by HuffPo or similar but by latimes.com. So how about something like 1703: 1294: 1126: 1053:

Filmmaker Richard Linklater has featured Jones in two of his films, Through A Scanner Darkly and Waking Life.

1009: 937:

If you are so sure that such an effort would be wasted, you may wish to spare yourself the effort of writing

614: 539: 450: 406:(which is a key reason they don't meet BLP). Your insertions of these links is analogous to an editor adding 282: 2962: 2488: 2211: 2189: 2159: 2148: 1793: 1765: 1732: 996: 930: 894: 856: 819: 776: 739:

about how right wing someone is. Without specific suggestions about changes to the article and support from

156: 2203: 2181: 1969:

call for immediate removal of inappropriate material and blocks for those who continually violate them. --

1809: 1785: 1542: 1238:

When providing refs for books it is important to provide the actual page #. Provide it or delete the info.

1050:

he referenced his association with Jones in a letter to the media avowing the 9-11 Truth conspiracy theory.

988: 922: 886: 848: 811: 768: 555: 483: 462: 2912: 2729: 2678: 2322: 2133: 1855: 1205:. If you wish to challenge the quality of Harper Collins publishers, please go ahead. the notice board is 563: 491: 470: 214: 2762: 2648:

Knowledge (XXG) really ought to have a page dedicated to dispelling some of this guy's dangerous ideas:

2572: 2254:

http://makeiteighteh.com/2012/11/15/the-controlled-opposition-fronts-have-played-truthers-like-a-fiddle/

1090: 1062: 1030: 712: 683: 631: 375: 2687:

We can do the debunking of Alex Jones' right-wing conspiracy theories on the main Alex Jones wiki page.

2011: 736: 226:

An upgrade to primary topic doesn't usually mean an increase in traffic if that is what you're saying.

2568: 2239:

Is there a credible source that shows Alex Jones' father was a member of far right John Birch Society?

627: 371: 3006: 2975:

editor here is responsible for moderating and removing inappropriate content about a living person:

2396: 2291:

member? While it's obvious that Jones pushes the far right views and crackpot conspiracy theories of

1675: 1646: 1458: 1406: 1335: 1248: 1229: 1192: 294: 227: 193: 140: 2998: 399: 2817: 2746: 2625: 1598: 315: 1634: 1450: 1326: 1239: 2785: 1283: 603: 528: 439: 271: 252: 2292: 2288: 2090: 1805:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-alex-jones-20130418,0,1322244.story

1446: 1383: 1355: 1279: 1161:

The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama

587: 583: 2066: 592: 2839: 2725: 2675: 2649: 2534:

is indeed a film with Alex Jones as a subject. It must not be suppressed. It must be restored.

2517: 2458: 1851: 1165: 598: 211: 2873: 2869: 2850: 2781: 2739:

You do mean the one where Alex says "Knowledge (XXG) is like ten years old"? Just wondering.

1159: 403: 395: 1086: 1058: 1039:

Made the change. Perhaps a revision of the "Reception" section could go something like this:

1026: 708: 2976: 2935: 2877: 2450: 2428: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1921: 1917: 1206: 732: 391: 186: 180: 3002: 2390: 2228: 2113: 1895: 1833: 1671: 1642: 1454: 1402: 1331: 1244: 1225: 1188: 1107: 946: 910: 874: 183: 137: 47: 17: 2671: 2442: 1424: 1419:

in fact create the presumption of satisfying the Knowledge (XXG) content requirements of

1375: 1370: 1359: 1351: 1202: 740: 349: 675: 2923: 2740: 1618:

articles should be covering. Is there any reliably sourced content to the contrary? --

1592: 1479:

and several newspapers, including one for which your work is part of the Pulizer Prize

435: 311: 1420: 1366: 1347: 189: 336: 248: 1698:

So what happened to Daffydavid's dispute? Did it get forwarded to the noticeboards?

2835: 2513: 2454: 1885: 1880: 1655:

the BURDEN has been satisfied. it is up to you to show that the claim is UNDUE. --

427: 419: 1482: 806:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2006/02/the-dick-cheney-shooting-cover-up-deepens/

2274:

Here is Alex Jones calling on everyone to join the far right John Birch Society:

2029:

conspiracy nut. It's not my private view. It's a majority view of the mainstream.

1046:

many progressive as well as paleoconservative critics of the Bush administration.

2931: 2927: 2810: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3010: 2992: 2966: 2951: 2916: 2889: 2862: 2843: 2825: 2799: 2770: 2751: 2733: 2712: 2696: 2681: 2660: 2637: 2617: 2594: 2576: 2543: 2521: 2492: 2462: 2422: 2400: 2382: 2365:

Please restore the film "The Alex Jones Deception" to the films subject section

2359: 2344: 2326: 2232: 2163: 2137: 2117: 2102: 2038: 2023: 2005: 1978: 1949: 1899: 1859: 1837: 1821: 1797: 1769: 1755: 1736: 1707: 1693: 1679: 1664: 1650: 1603: 1546: 1495: 1462: 1436: 1410: 1395: 1339: 1316: 1297: 1271: 1233: 1218: 1196: 1130: 1111: 1094: 1080: 1066: 1034: 1013: 979: 950: 914: 878: 836: 794: 716: 702: 687: 651: 635: 617: 567: 542: 495: 474: 453: 379: 340: 319: 302: 285: 256: 235: 217: 201: 148: 2531: 2527: 2476: 2472: 2410: 2370: 2333: 2282: 2224: 2109: 1891: 1829: 1103: 942: 906: 870: 415: 358:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

165: 160: 2250:

a supporter of the Society, as is Alex Jones, and Jones’ father was a member.

438:

article. So, please strive to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards when editing.

2814: 2178:?) but this article makes no references to any of the items being claimed. 2128:

Citation no. 36 is labeled as "dead link", but the link seems to work fine.

1476: 1322: 411: 2295:

on his show, there is no clear confirmation that Jones is a member of JBS.

480:

This is rich, considering the subject of this dispute is Alex Jones. lol.

2628:. We had better have proper sources when dealing with the likes of Jones. 1282:(not too little, and not too much) so that we don't overstate his impact. 510:

external links, it would be just as inappropriate. The same goes for the

431: 332: 2902:

Red Pen of Doom, why do you say that Bob Cesca is not a political writer

390:

To the anonymous editor that keeps reinserting these links, please read

1570: 1321:

RedPen, don't try to restate my position in your own words, creating a

179:. The Knowledge (XXG) page views over the past 90 days are as follows: 1670:

have more time I will forward this to the appropriate notice boards. -

1303:

include it in the article, and so i put it here so as not to loose it.

407: 1874:

I don't see any attack here on Jones. The article linked to starts:

1782:

Alex Jones' claims on Boston bombing being a false flag operation:

2238: 1803:"Alex Jones has a sick theory about the Boston Marathon bombings" 1415:

quite to the contrary of your first comment, being published by HC

1778:

Discuss: Alex Jones claims in the aftermath of the Boston bombings

423: 1571:

Jones' impact and influence in the Iowa National Guard incident

2868:

recently, his tantrums might be even more relevant. In short:

733:

This page is for discussing how to improve the article content

25: 2806:

The interview made a significant splash in the UK media, e.g.

136:. We have consensus that this is the apparent primary topic. 2983:" (I suggest you read the whole policy behind that link)-- 2650:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/

2267:

I'd be exposed to those ideas, starting at around age two."

1638: 2287:

And for that matter anyone can confirm that Alex Jones is

2263:

some neighbors who were members of the John Birch Society.

670:, a film Jones produced". This is inaccurate at best. On 2409:

Is there a wiki rule on that? If there isn't, the film "

2154:

Citations 25, 26, 27 do not work and should be removed.

113:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

2980:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2278:

Alex Jones: Everyone Should Join the John Birch Society

905:. Secondly, let's have a source for each interview. -- 1744:

release a better photo under the free copyright policy

348:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2065:

There have been multiple stories about his position

676:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0839892/fullcredits#cast

1609: 127:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2938:related commentary. What is your evidence that he 1965:apply to content on the talk pages - and they and 362:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2509:allowed as a source for itself either. Cheers. 662:The article states: "Jones' 9/11 conspiracy film 2907:Red Pen. I request a neutral mod on this issue. 901:First, let me show you how to sign a comment: 2603:Regarding Jones’ opinion on the moon landings 2441:Is that sufficient for you? The "film" fails 1102:articles about other right wing figures.) -- 8: 1486:. Are we through with this nonsense now? -- 2511:Please read the policies and abide by them. 2479:must be restored. It cannot be suppressed. 2169:Citations don't match what they're claiming 2168: 1610:Jones' impact and influence on other people 1346:You are conflating two or three policies - 863:First, let me show you how to make a link: 2334:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrWf977SjAY 2283:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJ_ngHcT7I 1911: 386:Inappropriate See also and External links 1727:user-base to further defame his image. 1201:"Best selling" is not a requirement for 2087:as widespread as the irish independent 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2445:in general as well, but the specific 1325:argument. To be perfectly clear read 7: 749:The following discussion is closed. 132:The result of the move request was: 268:New World Order (conspiracy theory) 24: 2813:'s lunchtime "Jeremy Vine Show": 2501:in itself - Knowledge (XXG) does 1957:. You need to also remember that 1746:, we will be glad to take it. -- 2554:Editing or absence of his topics 2505:regard it as notable, and it is 2265:They'd come over for dinner and 2012:not to vent views about a person 1140:The discussion above is closed. 29: 2626:Esquire got duped by Alex Jones 2890:02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2863:23:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 2844:13:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) 2771:23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 2713:00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC) 743:, this "conversation" is over. 1: 2369:A user has removed the film " 1742:good for him. if he wants to 618:17:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 568:09:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 543:17:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 496:06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 475:07:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 454:16:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 422:article, or an editor adding 341:17:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 320:23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 149:21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 3011:15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) 2682:17:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 2661:13:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 2481:I am not using it as source. 2389:to prove why it is notable. 2073:as well passing mentions in 1694:03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1680:02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1665:02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1651:21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1628:13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1604:21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1586:13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1547:05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 1496:02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC) 1463:18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1437:16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1411:21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1396:15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1340:08:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1317:00:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1298:23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 1272:21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 1234:20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 1219:19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 1197:19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 845:05:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 808:22:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 765:20:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 703:15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 688:06:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC) 303:01:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 286:15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 257:15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 236:23:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 218:09:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 202:06:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 2993:14:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 2967:08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 2952:15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 2917:12:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 2826:23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2800:23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2752:22:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2734:02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2638:08:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 2595:07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 1916:off topic discussion about 636:05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 599:Skeptic Project: Alex Jones 552:Alex Jones page, thank you. 170:Alex Jones (disambiguation) 3033: 2697:09:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 2618:08:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 2151:) 09:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC 2118:12:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 2103:15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2039:15:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2024:15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2006:14:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1979:14:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1950:14:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1900:06:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1860:04:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1838:04:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1822:16:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 1798:04:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 1770:04:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 1756:20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 1737:11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 1708:16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 1421:being verifiably published 1164:. HarperCollins. pp. 73–. 1158:Bunch, Will (2011-09-13). 1131:04:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 1112:13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 1095:18:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1081:18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1067:17:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1035:17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 1014:16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 980:09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 951:08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 915:06:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 879:05:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 837:03:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 795:21:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 741:reliably published sources 717:18:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) 652:15:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 380:08:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 2853:issues with doing so. -- 2544:04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 2522:19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2493:16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2463:11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2423:09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2401:15:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 2383:06:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 2360:05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 2305:14:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 2666:You may be correct, but 2577:06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2532:The Alex Jones Deception 2528:The Alex Jones Deception 2477:The Alex Jones Deception 2473:The Alex Jones Deception 2411:The Alex Jones Deception 2371:The Alex Jones Deception 2345:06:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC) 2327:00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 2311:The Alex Jones Deception 2233:22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 2216:21:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 2194:21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 2164:09:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 1967:the talk page guidelines 1142:Please do not modify it. 841:And yet this happened... 751:Please do not modify it. 525:WP:Neutral point of view 355:Please do not modify it. 120:Please do not modify it. 2988:aka The Red Pen of Doom 2947:aka The Red Pen of Doom 2858:aka The Red Pen of Doom 2138:23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 2098:aka The Red Pen of Doom 2019:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1974:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1751:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1722:Image Conspiracy Theory 1689:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1660:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1623:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1581:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1491:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1442:Beats head against wall 1432:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1391:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1312:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1267:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1214:aka The Red Pen of Doom 1076:aka The Red Pen of Doom 790:aka The Red Pen of Doom 698:aka The Red Pen of Doom 521:WP:No original research 157:Alex Jones (radio host) 2880:and make it relevant. 2719:Piers Morgan interview 2703:of) wiki's integrity. 2499:self-published polemic 1055: 725:Jones and Progressives 593:Leaving Alex Jonestown 2453:is absolute. Cheers. 2083:local cbs commentator 1149:Sources and expansion 1040: 42:of past discussions. 2809:and was featured on 1469:Simon & Schuster 2471:But I am not using 1121:ultra right-wing. 2882:Gretchen Mädelnick 2748:Talk to me, Billy 2705:Gretchen Mädelnick 2293:John Birch Society 2289:John Birch Society 1600:Talk to me, Billy 1382:Then there is the 752: 184:TV presenter (60K) 2989: 2948: 2859: 2399: 2206:comment added by 2184:comment added by 2099: 2062: 2061: 2020: 1975: 1812:comment added by 1788:comment added by 1752: 1690: 1661: 1624: 1582: 1492: 1433: 1392: 1313: 1268: 1215: 1077: 991:comment added by 941:comment here. -- 925:comment added by 889:comment added by 851:comment added by 814:comment added by 791: 771:comment added by 750: 699: 558:comment added by 486:comment added by 465:comment added by 295:John Pack Lambert 187:journalist (5.8K) 181:radio host (547K) 146: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3024: 2990: 2987: 2949: 2946: 2860: 2857: 2793: 2792: 2789: 2749: 2743: 2724:something else. 2395: 2393: 2218: 2196: 2100: 2097: 2021: 2018: 1976: 1973: 1912: 1824: 1800: 1753: 1750: 1691: 1688: 1662: 1659: 1625: 1622: 1601: 1595: 1583: 1580: 1493: 1490: 1434: 1431: 1393: 1390: 1314: 1311: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1269: 1266: 1216: 1213: 1181: 1179: 1177: 1118:ultra right-wing 1078: 1075: 1000: 934: 898: 860: 823: 792: 789: 780: 700: 697: 611: 610: 607: 570: 536: 535: 532: 517:WP:Verifiability 498: 477: 447: 446: 443: 357: 279: 278: 275: 144: 122: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3023: 3022: 3021: 2985: 2944: 2904: 2855: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2747: 2741: 2721: 2672:reliable source 2646: 2605: 2556: 2391: 2367: 2314: 2241: 2201: 2179: 2171: 2126: 2095: 2063: 2016: 1971: 1924: 1881:an article here 1807: 1783: 1780: 1748: 1724: 1686: 1657: 1620: 1612: 1599: 1593: 1578: 1573: 1488: 1477:Huffington Post 1471:, the reliable 1429: 1425:reliable source 1388: 1309: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1264: 1211: 1175: 1173: 1171: 1157: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1073: 986: 920: 884: 866:; for example, 846: 809: 787: 766: 755: 746: 745: 744: 727: 695: 660: 608: 605: 604: 553: 533: 530: 529: 481: 460: 444: 441: 440: 388: 366: 353: 329:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 276: 273: 272: 228:Marcus Qwertyus 194:Marcus Qwertyus 118: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:Talk:Alex Jones 12: 11: 5: 3030: 3028: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 2924:Weekend Update 2903: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2829: 2828: 2818:Martinevans123 2803: 2802: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2763:Egamirorrimeht 2755: 2754: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2689:119.74.171.248 2685: 2684: 2645: 2644:Jones Debunked 2642: 2641: 2640: 2630:119.74.165.122 2610:137.248.146.24 2604: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2587:119.74.165.122 2561:101.51.132.106 2555: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2536:116.14.147.129 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2415:119.74.167.128 2404: 2403: 2366: 2363: 2348: 2347: 2313: 2308: 2297:119.74.165.153 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2170: 2167: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2031:116.14.168.144 1998:116.14.168.144 1942:116.14.168.144 1926: 1925: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1841: 1840: 1814:116.14.167.103 1779: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1380: 1363: 1304: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1183: 1182: 1169: 1150: 1147: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1037: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 972:119.74.171.248 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 881: 829:119.74.170.112 798: 797: 756: 747: 737:personal rants 731: 730: 729: 728: 726: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 693:clarified. -- 659: 656: 655: 654: 644:116.14.168.144 623: 622: 621: 620: 572: 571: 548: 547: 546: 545: 500: 499: 478: 436:George W. Bush 387: 384: 383: 382: 365: 364: 350:requested move 344: 343: 322: 305: 288: 260: 259: 241: 240: 239: 238: 221: 220: 173: 172: 163: 153: 152: 130: 129: 115:requested move 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3029: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2982: 2981: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959:116.14.146.77 2955: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2901: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2861: 2852: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2808: 2805: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2744: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2683: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653:72.74.251.159 2651: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2602: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2553: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2433: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375:119.74.171.69 2372: 2364: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352:119.74.171.69 2346: 2342: 2338: 2337:116.15.197.39 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2279: 2275: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2259: 2256: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2245: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208:24.107.183.82 2205: 2197: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2186:24.107.183.82 2183: 2177: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156:24.90.230.216 2152: 2150: 2146: 2145:24.90.230.216 2140: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1887: 1882: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852:Fat&Happy 1849: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1801: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1790:116.14.172.28 1787: 1777: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1754: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1721: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1700:121.7.128.238 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1663: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1617: 1616:encyclopedia 1605: 1602: 1596: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1497: 1494: 1485: 1483: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1394: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1315: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1172: 1170:9780061991721 1167: 1163: 1162: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1148: 1143: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1123:119.74.162.74 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1054: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1023: 1022: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006:219.74.47.241 1002: 1001: 998: 994: 993:108.202.48.70 990: 983: 982: 981: 977: 973: 968: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 935: 932: 928: 927:108.202.48.70 924: 918: 917: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 896: 892: 891:108.202.48.70 888: 882: 880: 876: 872: 868: 865: 862: 861: 858: 854: 853:108.202.48.70 850: 844: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 825: 824: 821: 817: 816:108.202.48.70 813: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 796: 793: 783: 782: 781: 778: 774: 773:108.202.48.70 770: 763: 759: 754: 742: 738: 734: 724: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705: 704: 701: 692: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 657: 653: 649: 645: 640: 639: 638: 637: 633: 629: 619: 616: 612: 601: 600: 595: 594: 589: 585: 581: 576: 575: 574: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 550: 549: 544: 541: 537: 526: 522: 518: 513: 509: 504: 503: 502: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 479: 476: 472: 468: 464: 458: 457: 456: 455: 452: 448: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 385: 381: 377: 373: 368: 367: 363: 361: 356: 351: 346: 345: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 306: 304: 300: 296: 292: 289: 287: 284: 280: 269: 265: 262: 261: 258: 254: 250: 246: 243: 242: 237: 233: 229: 225: 224: 223: 222: 219: 216: 213: 209: 206: 205: 204: 203: 199: 195: 191: 188: 185: 182: 178: 177:primary topic 171: 167: 164: 162: 158: 155: 154: 151: 150: 147: 141: 139: 135: 128: 126: 121: 116: 111: 110: 106:Proposed move 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2979: 2972: 2939: 2909:219.75.50.93 2905: 2726:Jeremy112233 2722: 2686: 2676:Arthur Rubin 2667: 2647: 2606: 2557: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2485:121.6.173.17 2480: 2446: 2434: 2368: 2349: 2319:72.231.4.108 2315: 2310: 2286: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2273: 2266: 2262: 2260: 2257: 2249: 2248:Ron Paul is 2247: 2246: 2242: 2202:— Preceding 2198: 2180:— Preceding 2172: 2153: 2141: 2130:149.4.115.15 2127: 2064: 1886:David Horsey 1884: 1875: 1847: 1808:— Preceding 1802: 1784:— Preceding 1781: 1762:121.6.182.25 1729:76.106.2.110 1725: 1615: 1613: 1574: 1441: 1416: 1358:and perhaps 1260: 1174:. Retrieved 1160: 1152: 1141: 1117: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 987:— Preceding 938: 921:— Preceding 902: 885:— Preceding 867: 864: 847:— Preceding 810:— Preceding 767:— Preceding 764: 760: 757: 748: 672:Loose Change 671: 668:Loose Change 667: 664:Loose Change 663: 661: 658:Loose Change 624: 597: 591: 579: 560:220.255.1.32 554:— Preceding 511: 507: 488:220.255.1.30 482:— Preceding 467:220.255.1.64 461:— Preceding 428:War criminal 420:Barack Obama 389: 354: 347: 324: 307: 290: 263: 244: 212:Arthur Rubin 207: 190:actor (1.3K) 174: 133: 131: 119: 112: 78: 43: 37: 2932:Aziz Ansari 2928:Steve Allen 2811:BBC Radio 2 2569:BegumAttila 2447:prohibition 2079:daily beast 1633:Again, see 1539:216.81.5.98 1087:Notanipokay 1059:Notanipokay 1027:Notanipokay 709:Notanipokay 680:24.27.63.92 642:comes from. 628:NavyBlues16 372:Marty2Hotty 360:move review 125:move review 36:This is an 3003:Daffydavid 2999:WP:BLPTALK 2742:RadioKAOS 2392:Beerest355 2110:User:DanTD 1672:Daffydavid 1643:Daffydavid 1594:RadioKAOS 1455:Daffydavid 1403:Daffydavid 1379:otherwise. 1332:Daffydavid 1280:due weight 1245:Daffydavid 1226:Daffydavid 1189:Daffydavid 1176:10 January 735:, not for 416:Antichrist 400:WP:SEEALSO 166:Alex Jones 161:Alex Jones 138:Cúchullain 98:Archive 10 2971:Actually 2670:is not a 2124:Dead link 2075:huff post 2071:policymic 1635:wp:burden 1451:wp:burden 1327:WP:Burden 1323:straw man 1240:WP:Burden 412:Terrorist 327:Textbook 312:Tiggerjay 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 2497:It is a 2204:unsigned 2182:unsigned 2091:WP:UNDUE 1810:unsigned 1786:unsigned 1447:wp:undue 1384:WP:UNDUE 1356:WP:UNDUE 1207:thataway 989:unsigned 923:unsigned 887:unsigned 849:unsigned 812:unsigned 769:unsigned 588:WP:GEVAL 584:WP:UNDUE 556:unsigned 523:, & 512:See also 508:Critical 484:unsigned 463:unsigned 432:Theocrat 249:Kauffner 2922:as per 2874:WP:NPOV 2870:WP:BOLD 2851:WP:NPOV 2836:Landroo 2791:Shandy` 2782:WP:BOLD 2514:Collect 2455:Collect 1289:Shandy` 609:Shandy` 580:neutral 534:Shandy` 445:Shandy` 434:to the 418:to the 404:WP:NPOV 396:WP:ELNO 325:Support 308:Support 277:Shandy` 264:Support 245:Support 39:archive 2986:TRPoD 2945:TRPoD 2936:WP:BLP 2878:WP:BLP 2856:TRPoD 2679:(talk) 2585:Jones. 2451:WP:BLP 2429:WP:BLP 2096:TRPoD 2093:. -- 2017:TRPoD 1992:, and 1972:TRPoD 1963:WP:NPA 1959:WP:BLP 1922:WP:NPA 1918:WP:BLP 1749:TRPoD 1687:TRPoD 1658:TRPoD 1621:TRPoD 1579:TRPoD 1489:TRPoD 1475:, The 1430:TRPoD 1389:TRPoD 1310:TRPoD 1265:TRPoD 1212:TRPoD 1074:TRPoD 788:TRPoD 696:TRPoD 430:, and 414:, and 408:Muslim 398:, and 392:WP:BLP 291:Oppose 215:(talk) 2973:every 2674:. — 2443:WP:RS 2225:Bbb23 2067:salon 1994:IREHR 1892:Hoary 1890:? -- 1830:Hoary 1473:Wiley 1423:in a 1376:WP:OR 1371:WP:RS 1360:WP:OR 1352:WP:RS 1209:. -- 1203:WP:RS 1104:Hoary 943:Hoary 907:Hoary 871:Hoary 827:case. 16:< 3007:talk 3001:. -- 2963:talk 2913:talk 2886:talk 2840:talk 2822:talk 2797:talk 2788:John 2767:talk 2730:talk 2709:talk 2693:talk 2668:that 2657:talk 2634:talk 2614:talk 2591:talk 2573:talk 2565:talk 2540:talk 2518:talk 2489:talk 2459:talk 2427:Try 2419:talk 2397:Talk 2379:talk 2356:talk 2341:talk 2323:talk 2301:talk 2229:talk 2212:talk 2190:talk 2160:talk 2149:talk 2134:talk 2114:talk 2085:and 2035:talk 2014:.-- 2002:talk 1986:SPLC 1961:and 1946:talk 1920:and 1896:talk 1856:talk 1834:talk 1818:talk 1794:talk 1766:talk 1733:talk 1704:talk 1676:talk 1647:talk 1543:talk 1459:talk 1417:DOES 1407:talk 1369:and 1367:WP:V 1354:and 1350:via 1348:WP:V 1336:talk 1295:talk 1286:John 1249:talk 1230:talk 1193:talk 1178:2013 1166:ISBN 1127:talk 1108:talk 1091:talk 1063:talk 1031:talk 1010:talk 997:talk 976:talk 947:talk 931:talk 911:talk 903:~~~~ 895:talk 875:talk 857:talk 833:talk 820:talk 777:talk 713:talk 684:talk 648:talk 632:talk 615:talk 606:John 586:and 564:talk 540:talk 531:John 492:talk 471:talk 451:talk 442:John 424:Nazi 376:talk 337:talk 331:. -- 316:talk 299:talk 283:talk 274:John 253:talk 232:talk 198:talk 134:Move 2507:not 2503:not 2449:in 2116:) 1990:ADL 1848:LAT 939:any 602:)? 596:or 352:. 333:BDD 208:Meh 3009:) 2965:) 2940:is 2930:, 2926:, 2915:) 2888:) 2876:, 2872:, 2842:) 2824:) 2795:• 2784:. 2769:) 2745:– 2732:) 2711:) 2695:) 2659:) 2636:) 2616:) 2593:) 2575:) 2542:) 2520:) 2491:) 2461:) 2421:) 2381:) 2358:) 2343:) 2325:) 2303:) 2231:) 2214:) 2192:) 2162:) 2136:) 2081:, 2077:, 2069:, 2037:) 2004:) 1988:, 1948:) 1898:) 1858:) 1836:) 1820:) 1796:) 1768:) 1735:) 1706:) 1678:) 1649:) 1639:RS 1597:– 1545:) 1461:) 1409:) 1338:) 1293:• 1232:) 1195:) 1129:) 1110:) 1093:) 1065:) 1033:) 1012:) 999:) 978:) 949:) 933:) 913:) 897:) 877:) 859:) 835:) 822:) 779:) 715:) 686:) 650:) 634:) 613:• 566:) 538:• 527:. 519:, 494:) 473:) 449:• 426:, 410:, 394:, 378:) 339:) 318:) 301:) 281:• 255:) 234:) 200:) 168:→ 159:→ 117:. 94:→ 64:← 3005:( 2961:( 2911:( 2884:( 2838:( 2820:( 2765:( 2728:( 2707:( 2691:( 2655:( 2632:( 2612:( 2589:( 2571:( 2563:( 2538:( 2516:( 2487:( 2457:( 2417:( 2377:( 2354:( 2339:( 2321:( 2299:( 2227:( 2210:( 2188:( 2174:( 2158:( 2147:( 2132:( 2112:( 2033:( 2000:( 1996:. 1944:( 1940:. 1894:( 1854:( 1832:( 1816:( 1792:( 1764:( 1731:( 1702:( 1674:( 1645:( 1541:( 1457:( 1405:( 1334:( 1251:) 1247:( 1228:( 1224:- 1191:( 1187:- 1180:. 1125:( 1106:( 1089:( 1061:( 1029:( 1008:( 995:( 974:( 945:( 929:( 909:( 893:( 873:( 855:( 831:( 818:( 775:( 711:( 682:( 646:( 630:( 562:( 490:( 469:( 374:( 335:( 314:( 297:( 251:( 230:( 196:( 145:c 142:/ 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index